Yes its a pain in the butt when you are caught speeding, the points and the fines..all very annoying. Especially if like me, you were only going about 5mph over the limit or something close...
But i have to say- they are there for a reason- to try and slow people down.
Speeding can cause accidents and kill.
Just keep to the limit - happy days:)

Capt.KAOS

19th Apr 2006, 11:35

Organised crime is using the Police's obsession with car drivers. They send out 2-3 reckless drivers in order to catch the attention of the local police, which never failed. In the meantime they're hijacking vans with high value cargo and drive away with it without any problem. I know that's happening many times here...

ORAC

19th Apr 2006, 11:55

If the intention of the camera was too slow traffic for the safety of the workers, it would have been obvious after a matter of weeks and additional measures could have been added. More signs, the electronic boards which show your registration and speed as you approach them etc.

The mere fact that, 18 months after its introduction, the camera is still catching the same number of people demostrates that it there purely as a money making racket and that the safety of the workers is held as being of no significance.

If I were amongst the workers I would be tempted to strike, and if any has been killed or injured I would suggest they have a strong case to sue for lack of due care and regard.

Wile E. Coyote

19th Apr 2006, 17:10

My turn to winge about speed cameras.

In Feb. I was clocked doing 43 in a 40 : 3 points & 60 quid.
I've just received a notification of intended prosecution for doing 33 in a 30.

So if you find yourself stuck behind a Merc. doing 29 in a 30, 39 in a 40 etc., it'll be me....

:mad:

Jerricho

19th Apr 2006, 17:16

But i have to say- they are there for a reason- to try and slow people down.
Speeding can cause accidents and kill.
Just keep to the limit - happy days:)

5...........4...........3.............2....................

:E

BenThere

19th Apr 2006, 17:17

Anyone who thinks speed cameras are there for safety, not revenue, is kidding themselves.

If legislation mandated that proceeds from speed camera citations went to charity, or were rebated in the form of tax credits to society at large, there wouldn't be ten cameras installed in the world.

The whole point of speed cameras is that the cost of all-encompassing government is so large, insidious and hidden ways to lay additional taxes on us have to be conceived.

Jerricho

19th Apr 2006, 17:23

Not quite the poster I was expecting to be the first to respond to that, but pretty much on cue.

And here we go again.

(Fraser person who looks like Colin McCray, you done this on purpose. You bad man)

AnEviltwinEr

19th Apr 2006, 17:34

How many countries have speed cameras?

We have :suspect:

Onan the Clumsy

19th Apr 2006, 18:04

I get sick to death of people whinging on about speed cameras when it's really quite simple: Obey the speed limits and they would never have a problem. If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime :*

BenThere

19th Apr 2006, 18:08

Not so fast, Onan. Depends on where you are.

I often travel on a road near my home where the posted limit is 50mph but the traffic flows at 65mph. For me to observe the 50mph limit on my motorcycle would be suicidal.

Jerricho

19th Apr 2006, 18:28

There's one more person left to really start this again..............

Betchya can't guess who.

Unwell_Raptor

19th Apr 2006, 18:33

I am surprised to hear about people being ticketed for speeds as low as 33 in a 30. The Association of Chief Police officers (ACPO) issue guidelines (on their website if you are interested) about speed enforcement and they do not suggest a fixed penalty until speed exceeds 10% plus 2mph over the limit.

Of course they are only guidelines, but I have never heard of any documented case where the speed was under 36 in a 30. That doesn't mean there hasn't been one, of course, and the ACPO guidelines refer to special circumstances such as schools at going-home time.

Onan the Clumsy

19th Apr 2006, 19:34

Speed cameras make me :yuk:

:* :*

They are so onviously a revenue stream, pure and simple. Who ever invented them is overdue for a dipping in boiling oil :*

SixDelta

19th Apr 2006, 19:35

Speed camera's do NOT save lives, speeding in itself does not kill people. Inappropriate use of excessive speed for the given road conditions is what kills.

Cameras should only placed where a particular site has had 4 serious accidents, one camera on the M4 is positioned at such a site....but.... 2 of those "accidents" were people jumping of bridges! Obviously if the GATSO had been there they'd have had seconds thoughts....:rolleyes:

Check out the Assoc of British Drivers website (no link, don't want to be accused of advertsing) lots of good stuff about speed cameras.

6D

Unwell_Raptor

19th Apr 2006, 20:41

S'funny, innit?

Speed limits and enforcement have used up untold gigabytes of bandwidth here and elsewhere on the net. When my pals in the pub decide to give me a bo**ocking about being a JP it's always cameras that they go for.

Just compare and contrast (as the old A-level exams used to say) the eerie silence about the steady erosion of our liberty over the last decade. Summary powers handed to paid functionaries, answerable to ministers, limits on the right to silence, changes to the presumption of innocence and a move away from the State having to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt - all this and much more. Not a peep.

You could do away with Habeas Corpus and trial by jury with less protest than you get from increasing the number of speeding drivers who are caught.

loftustb

19th Apr 2006, 20:43

Now we all drive with our eyes glued to the speedo rather than looking outside.

tall and tasty

19th Apr 2006, 21:28

Well I have to drive past one every day on my new route to work.
silly thing is it is sandwiched between a pedestrian crossing (which you slow down for anyway) and a set of traffic lights which you should slow down for in anticipation.

BUT it still manages to get a fair few of my friends and almost me the other day doing 31 Mph. I thought it was a dummy until it flashed when I was coming the other way a week ago.

Its easier just to try and stick to the limit than suffer the points and the fines and everything else I suppose.:cool:

TnT

Ps but just once I would love to go through one when the roads are cleared and see if I could reach 180mph and get clocked for it then at least it would be something :}

fmgc

19th Apr 2006, 21:50

Please would you all stop getting done by the cameras. If you did stop then there wouldn't be any!!!

What really makes me laugh are the idiots who brake hard when passing an averaging camera then accelerate and then brake hard when they pass the next one.

B Fraser

19th Apr 2006, 21:51

Fraser person who looks like Colin McCrae, you done this on purpose. You bad man

There's nothing like a bit of mischief to stir thing up !

Yup, the big beastie from Stuttgart is about to stir from the garage of Fraser towers now that Spring is upon us. :E

Jerricho

19th Apr 2006, 22:35

......bad, bad man.
;)

B Fraser

19th Apr 2006, 22:38

Absolutely ! :p

ServisairLBA

19th Apr 2006, 23:14

the speed camera its on about is at ferrybridge, castleford ..about 1-2 miles away from me...its annoying as the tomtom speed camera alert thing picks it up..but the speed camera is mounted so high up you cant see it and the road has no warnings of speed cameras at all. its by the new A1 link road, past the bridges heading towards ferrybridge services.
Surely a sign should be there or at least make it visible :*

G-CPTN

20th Apr 2006, 00:30

Not sure of legality of trying to avoid penalty by claiming that the signs weren't there!!
Not sure of the 'logic' of this:-
accused of driving at an average of 112mph on a stretch of the 70mph road with his speed peaking at 132mph.
Bowyer was represented in court by Manchester-based lawyer Nick Freeman, who has represented a number of other celebrities accused of motoring offences.
previous speeding convictions that his client had received, including a 42-day ban for driving at 67mph in a 30mph zone.
following discussions with the prosecution, his client had admitted speeding at 99mph rather than the original charge at more than 100mph.
"There was a great deal of negotiation with the Crown and my client pleaded guilty to speeding at 99mph.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4923108.stm

G-CPTN

20th Apr 2006, 01:00

DEN! den den den den den . . .

Crepello

20th Apr 2006, 07:09

I can feel a "why it's great to live in the US" contribution coming on... with apologies.

In my current city, there are no speed cameras. They're dabbling with red-light cameras but with the murder rate breaking all known records, traffic isn't a police priority.

Here's what I like - I live beside an 8-lane urban dual carriageway where the speed limit's 35mph, junctions every few hundred yards. Radar detectors are legal. It's well known that if you drive at 35mph, you get in the way. However, if you drive at 55mph, you hit "the green wave". No kidding, catch one green light and the next twenty - literally - are in your favour. But if you slow down to the speed limit, forget it.

You know what's strange? It seems to work. And I was always an advocate of behaving myself. Weird... Shame about that murder rate though.

Loose rivets

20th Apr 2006, 07:27

Consistency would be an asset to public relations both sides of the oggin. My DIL was stopped on a main highway at 75 in a 70 and given a warning. All day long, a sea of metal speeds round our two towns. 55 in a 30 is the norm. The only folk using radar is the local t/v station staff, on its many crusades.

At home the Federations recommendations mean nothing. A middle aged gentleman got nicked at 33 on a wide seafront road on a very quiet, out of season day. This achieved nothing except to make him less of a law respecting citizen. I happen to know that the officers had been berated repeatedly to raise the number of convictions.

Wile E. Coyote

20th Apr 2006, 08:46

I phoned Northampton police (who are doing me for 33 in a 30) and was informed

"The guidelines are just that, guidelines. Exceeding 30 mph by any amount is an offence."

So if I have an accident because I am having to monitor my speed so closely, is it my fault? I bet the courts would say yes...

It is EXTREMELY difficult to keep one's speed within 2 mph of the speed limit without constant reference to the speedometer! So Onan, should I drive at 25 in a 30, 35 in a 40 and so on? Would you get :mad: ed off if you were stuck behind me doing 25 in a 30? I know I'd be constantly tailgated - and I have been hit three times by tailgaters (twice when I was actually accelerating!)

beana

20th Apr 2006, 09:42

Obey the limit = no camera flash, no fine received, no money made from you and nobody gets hurt :ok:

M.Mouse

20th Apr 2006, 09:59

nobody gets hurt

Simplistic nonsense.

UK road traffic accidents involving injury or death have altered very little since the current blitz on speeding.

It has been discussed at length by those cleverer than I why this might be.

G-CPTN

20th Apr 2006, 10:10

The assertion that 'speed kills' is a ridiculous generalisation. Of course many of the collisions that result in death DO involve inappropriate speed (not necessarily in excess of posted limits), but speed per se doesn't guarantee death - it's collisions that result in injuries and fatalities. Note that I HAVEN'T used the word 'accident' as very few collisions are accidents, but they are the inevitable result of mistakes or unwise actions. If nobody made mistakes or acted inappropriately then collisions wouldn't happen.

beana

20th Apr 2006, 10:20

If you would prefer not to receive a flash, fine and points- obey the limit - simple.

jayteeto

20th Apr 2006, 11:47

Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!
Can we just save some time and bandwidth by linking this to the same old repetetive posts please. Don't Speed = No points/fines = accidents REDUCED (never say accidents stopped, they could not manage that)

Jerricho

20th Apr 2006, 12:45

See what you've done Mr Fraser................

ORAC

20th Apr 2006, 12:53

Ah well, if I can´t do 90 on the motorway I´ll have to keep doing 70 down the country lanes in my sports car. It´s more fun going round corners anyway.... :E

TRY2FLY

20th Apr 2006, 13:23

Irish fixed GATSOs (speed cameras) are shortly to be privatised . There won't be any leeway at all then as it'll be do everybody ya can to maximise profit .
God help us all that drives anything faster than a sewing machine :{
F:mad:ing B****ards :*

Justiciar

20th Apr 2006, 13:26

Make a law that is difficult to consistently comply with then trap as many people as possible breaking it with the least human intervention:{ This is the public perception of speed cameras, made worse by the fact that they are often in locations where there appears to be little safety issue at the speed limit in question. We can all think of stretches of clear dual carriageway with a 50 limit, or lower. There might be more public support if the limits were more rigorously enforced in clear danger areas.

The latest weeze is the average speed detector. This is flagged up on a stretch of the M11 near Stanstead, where a 40 mph limit is enforced by cameras at the start and end of the section, which they claim then records average speed between the two points. Is it actually working? Who Knows!

We had better get used to it because it is not going to change. It was very interesting to see on a recent trip to France how much slower traffic has become, no doubt due to the swinging fines, which start at about £100 on the spot for speeds over 12 mph over the limit. Almost got caught myself on way into Caen where the speed limit changes from 130 kph on motorway to 110 at the end. Stoney faced Gendarmes were lining up the victims 2 km down the road at the traffic lights. No relevance to road safety of course, it was simply that the road ceased to be a motorway:( Now the Frence too are installing about 1000 radar cameras over the country.

Best policy may be to slow down:{

flyingfemme

20th Apr 2006, 17:08

Obey the limit = no camera flash, no fine received, no money made from you

Sadly, that isn't always the case. There are well-documented cases of cameras "clocking" walls at 8mph and the laser units are subject to fairly large operator and environmental errors.

A cursory glance at the "calibration documentation" shows huge loopholes to my (legally untrained) eye.The units are tested annually by a manufacturer and not subject to the normal "Weights and Measures Police". There is no link between a calibration certificate and the photos that they show you - which camera took these pictures anyway? One certificate that I have seen shows calibration tests at 25, 50 and 100m to support "evidence" captured at over 350m. As "scientific proof" it should be laughed out of court.

These things should cut both ways.....how about we offer £20 for a £60 fixed penalty and accept one point on the basis that a custodial sentence of 8 years seems to result in time served around 24 months?

Onan the Clumsy

20th Apr 2006, 19:45

Driving withing the speed limit is quite simple and is also something you promised to do when you took and passed your driving test. If you consider yourself above this regulation then what's next? No MOT? Refuse to buy insurance? Should you be allowed to drive drunk?

Simply put drive within the limits and you'll not have a problem. Speed and you'll get caught.

ORAC

20th Apr 2006, 21:07

Rules - for the obedience of fools - and the guidance of wise men. :cool:

B Fraser

20th Apr 2006, 21:29

See what you've done Mr Fraser................

what, started a calm and rational debate where nobody appears to be at risk of being sin-binned ? I deserve a bloody medal !

Jerricho

20th Apr 2006, 22:38

Bravo Mr Fraser, bravo.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/1074.gif

SixDelta

21st Apr 2006, 15:56

Do what i did, buy yourself a radar detector (Detector not a GPS thingy) drive as fast as you like til it goes "beep" then slow down.....easy!

That should spice the discussion up a bit :D

beana

21st Apr 2006, 16:12

Fairplay SixDelta!! Avoid the flash = No need to grizzle :ok:

Onan the Clumsy

21st Apr 2006, 18:48

It's an absolute outrage that we allow these parasites to bleed us of our money like this. It would be one thing if these cameras played some part in increasing safety, but as it stands, it is so obviously, repugnantly not the case that we should simply rise en masse and remove them.

both :mad:

Unwell_Raptor

21st Apr 2006, 20:52

http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/briefings/speedcamerabriefing.pdf

There is more than one point of view.

B Fraser

21st Apr 2006, 22:12

Time to throw a bucket of 100LL on the flames :}

I drove up the M40 this morning and on the Northbound carriageway, there are several miles of roadworks and I counted the cameras and workers being protected by them.

Cameras - 3
Workers - 2

After a jolly morning in Milton Keynes, I repeated the same exercise on the return leg.

Cameras - 3 (no surprises there)
Workers - 4

Twice the number of workers being protected at midday however, all were standing safely behind concrete / steel barriers that would not have disgraced Brands Hatch.

Discuss.........

pull the pin, open the door, roll it in and run away

Wile E. Coyote

22nd Apr 2006, 08:48

The police are definitely clamping down on people who exceed the speed limit - for whatever reason.

My next door neighbour has also been caught twice in the last 2 months, each time for 34 in a 30. This is on a 3-lane stretch of road with no pedestrian access which goes down a hill.

Two people at work have also been caught this year; one for 33 in a 30 (same as me :ouch: ), the other for 41 in a 30 - on a stretch of dual carriageway that was previously a 40.

People accidentally speed because the speed limits change so freqently on British roads, and traffic can be busy enough that constant monitoring of the speedometer would be dangerous. This makes speed cameras a license to print money!

Oh - I know! We should all drive everywhere at 25mph :ok:

pba_target

22nd Apr 2006, 09:12

without meaning to advertise, citroen have hit a little gem with the speed limited on the c4! brilliant for those 30 zones where you just know you'll be doing 33/34/35 and get busted for looking out rather than staring at the dials (Straight and level 1 anyone:))

Unwell_Raptor

22nd Apr 2006, 10:01

Fraser,

The design speed for those concrete barriers is 40 mph if hit by a truck. They may look pretty solid from our 1.5 tonne cars, but a 40-tonne artic is another story.

Helli-Gurl

22nd Apr 2006, 10:10

The police are definitely clamping down on people who exceed the speed limit - for whatever reason.

Easy...they're short of cash, now they're busy adopting "proriotised policing" and sending lads off on jollies to the world cup.

Let's face it we all know that the majority of speed cameras are nothing more than a revenue gathering exercise

Flying Lawyer

22nd Apr 2006, 11:03

I reject the majority of claims/assertions contained in U_R's link, and am not persuaded by the obvious propaganda. However, I wholeheartedly agree with one of the conclusions:
"As this review of research evidence indicates, excessive and inappropriate speed is a major contributing factor to road crashes and casualties."
(The underlining is mine.)

That's a point which critics of the widespread growth of speed cameras have made many times - in this forum and elsewhere.

TRY2FLY

22nd Apr 2006, 13:06

It's not the speed that kills , it's the sudden stop !:E

Onan the Clumsy

22nd Apr 2006, 13:42

Not so. Speed DOES kill and it's quite reasonable to put something in place that will help control it and reduce the carnage on our roads.

Increased speed = increased energy at the time of the collision. Reduce speed and you reduce the energy that needs dissipating during the collision.

Solid Rust Twotter

22nd Apr 2006, 13:47

Bring back the horse drawn aeroplane, I say....

Flying Lawyer

22nd Apr 2006, 14:08

Onan

Which part of TRY2FLY's assertion do you say is incorrect?
Can you explain your claim that "Speed DOES kill"?

Surely speed in itself doesn't kill - but the consequences of speed which may do so, depending upon the circumstances?
ie The 'sudden stop' as TRY2FLY put it or "Increased speed = increased energy at the time of the collision" as you describe it.

:confused:

bjcc

22nd Apr 2006, 15:06

FL

So are you going to enlighten us with why you disagree? And your evidence for doing so?

.

What about communities that have asked for speed cameras because the people who live in those areas feel (rightly or wrongly) that the limits are not being kept too, and that the resulting speeding is dangerous? Would you disagree with them too?

Before you start, I'll repeat, for the benifit of those that only read what they want. I am not in favour of speed cameras. Well, not as currently used. There is room for a discressionary approach, and if that were adpoted, then I would have no issue with them.

I agree inappropriate speed is a cause of accidents, and it is clear that many can't judge what is and is not appropriate. Given that is the case, then is it not better to keep the speed limits low, thus removing that decision from those that can't and wont drive in a safe appropriate way.

G-CPTN

22nd Apr 2006, 15:20

is it not better to keep the speed limits low, thus removing that decision from those that can't and wont drive in a safe appropriate way.
Fair comment, just as legislation has been applied to safety seat-belts.

B Fraser

22nd Apr 2006, 17:07

Fraser,

The design speed for those concrete barriers is 40 mph if hit by a truck. They may look pretty solid from our 1.5 tonne cars, but a 40-tonne artic is another story.

Raptor,

That's a very fair point however the hypothetical lorry would have been trundling along a good 10mph plus below the speed at which the camera revenue collection sensor would have been triggered. The posted limit is 50mph. Therefore........ the camera would have made no contribution whatsoever to safety.

Pretty much the case for most cameras. :rolleyes:

EESDL

22nd Apr 2006, 19:03

Just got back from visiting the relatives that are kindly spread around the country to find a kind letter from the HEDDLU GWENT POLICE advising me that one of their cameras has taken a picture of my car (which I was driving) doing a recorded speed of 93mph on a 70 mph stretch of the A449 Llandenny in sunny Wales.
Yes it was me driving but amazed at speed recorded - half a mind to frame the notice and show it as proof of my cars performance (aging Focus estate)when it comes to sell it!
Remember the stretch well - lovely open road - little traffic and DOH!
My only mitigation is that I was more concerned with looking out for Deer than rigidly sticking to limit.
Not much so what happens next?
They say that they have a pretty picture, so can I ask for a copy or will that work against me?
Previous conviction SP30 3 points Oct 02.

Kitsune

23rd Apr 2006, 10:53

If you hit a deer at 93, or indeed 70 mph then speed cameras are the least of your worries.....:eek:

ORAC

23rd Apr 2006, 10:55

Courtesy of the Spectator (http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=7662&issue=2006-04-22): Some suggest, for example, that we should lower the speed limit on motorways to 60 mph on the grounds that it would save lives. One might dispute this, but surely it isn’t a fallacy? Yes it is. It is a runaway train. We might indeed save lives by lowering the limit to 60 mph, but if saving lives is our motive, we’d save even more by lowering it to 50 mph, and more still at 40 mph. The train doesn’t stop at 60 unless extra arguments are added, otherwise it goes on until we save the maximum number of lives, with a speed limit of 0 mph.

A speed limit represents a compromise between the need to reach places within acceptable times, and the risk of death or injury which high speeds incur. Currently, it has settled on 70 mph. To argue successfully against 60 mph, you need only ask why that figure is better than other ones. Any reduction might well save lives, but why that one?
............................................................ .................

The present limit was selected in an era of motor cars with vastly inferior safety features and performance than today. The present system of cameras and monitoring systems also allows for flexible speed limits depending upon conditions, aka the M25.

The question which should therefore be asked is why we have the present rigid limits. And it does not even need automation, the French, for example, have had different limits for dry and wet conditions for years.

Krystal n chips

23rd Apr 2006, 11:59

............................................................ .................
The present limit was selected in an era of motor cars with vastly inferior safety features and performance than today. The present system of cameras and monitoring systems also allows for flexible speed limits depending upon conditions, aka the M25.
.

The first point is fair enough, however, I still propose that, despite the welcome advances in vehicle techology, the counter effect is that many drivers become complacent as a result--by this I mean they feel secure in the vehicle with all it's safety features and, as a result, simply don't bother to actually---drive the vehicle--with all that entails. They simply get in the cocoon of the car, start the engine, and off they go--because "it's fitted with ABS, etc --so it's safe and so am I".

The flexible speed limits are also in force on the M42 as well---and are actually pretty good ---although the number who still cannot read the signs and the rather large Camera warnings should have got the bill in the post by now--however, on the M60, it seems whoever controls them simply puts up an arbitary speed and the "Queue Caution " message--and leaves it at that!.

Farrell

23rd Apr 2006, 12:36

Wasn't there a bloke who sued the French Road Authorities after he totalled his Mercedes after the guy coming in the opposite direction got photographed??

Apparently it was raining and between the dazzle - and the distraction of the camera flash, he lost control of the vehicle.

Helli-Gurl

23rd Apr 2006, 12:39

More importantly Farrell, was he successful? :)

G-CPTN

23rd Apr 2006, 12:51

Just got back from visiting the relatives that are kindly spread around the country to find a kind letter from the HEDDLU GWENT POLICE advising me that one of their cameras has taken a picture of my car (which I was driving) doing a recorded speed of 93mph on a 70 mph stretch of the A449 Llandenny in sunny Wales.

They say that they have a pretty picture, so can I ask for a copy or will that work against me?
Following the UK Government's freedom of information act you can now get access to speed camera offences registered in the last 12 months.
Did you know that every time your car goes past a speed camera, even 1mph over the set limit it is registered and put on a database?
You only get a ticket if you are way over the limit or, (and this is the bit that we didn't know) if you receive over 20 'near misses'. Then you will be classed as a serial offender and get a ticket the next time you go just over the limit.

This is why you hear of people being done for 32mph in a 30 limit area whilst others doing 37 do not.

You can check what has been registered against your vehicle at the following address:

http://www.e-database.co.uk/

You will be asked for a password but just click on the need a password link and you will be given one for future use. If there is any data on your vehicle you can click on the camera window to see a copy of the actual photograph.

Onan the Clumsy

23rd Apr 2006, 13:43

The question which should therefore be asked is why we have the present rigid limits. And it does not even need automation, the French, for example, have had different limits for dry and wet conditions for years.A very good question. Even the Seppos have day and night limits.

Speed cameras are of course an outrage and quite obviously have nothing to do with safety. They generate revenue for a local authority and allow the government to track our movements.

The speed part is a smokescreen, the tracking part is the real reason :cool:

419

23rd Apr 2006, 15:36

Meredydd Hughes, police lead on roads policing and Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police said:
"The police service and the government are constantly striving to make our roads as safe as possible for all road users. Evidence indicates that up to 10% of vehicles on our roads are being used illegally and many of these will be people who drive with no insurance. We know that people who don't insure their vehicles, or indeed drive with no licence or test certificate are more likely to be involved in other criminal activity, and in collisions. Collisions in which people may be killed or seriously injured.

So that's an estimated 2 million (police estimate, not mine) cars that don't have to worry about speeding. (or mot, or registering the vehicle), as the camera's only catch the honest people who register and insure their cars.

EESDL

23rd Apr 2006, 16:01

Have no qualms about speed limits - but don't think that they were brought in to save lives etc as they were introduced during the oil crisis to save fuel!!

..or were the limits lowered further...before my time!

Just wondering how many other tickets are coming my way after a more recent trip down a seemingly empty M65..........

Wondered how much all those fancy gantries over the M42 cost?
Effing unbelievable - must have been a terrible accident blackspot to justify such expense!
Best to spend money on such waste than extra police on the beat - or how about..........grrrrrr!

bjcc

23rd Apr 2006, 16:13

419

Cameras don't catch those that don't register their vehicle? Not a new thing, it's been happening for years for all sorts of offences. It hasn't changed much, drivers just used to give false deatils to police when they were stopped.

Of course the estimate of 2 million that don't have to worry about it, assums that 2 million vehicles are not registered, and that figure I would dispute.

Drivers often think their vehicles are safer there days and at low speed that may be correct, having dealt with a few high speed accidents, the difference really isn't worth relying on.

419

23rd Apr 2006, 16:40

Bjcc,
I know it's been going on for years, but at least in the past, there was a fair chance of being stopped by the police if you committed a driving offence. Nowadays, it's very rare to see any traffic police in the area I live.
As to unregistered vehicles, how about this:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1750138,00.html
One motorist has been clocked speeding more than 100 times without being caught, while another has got away with driving at 119mph in a built-up area. The phenomenon has prompted police to call for a change in the law.
The MP, who represents Bedfordshire South West, was alerted to the scam by his local force, which he said had recorded 1,000 offences in one month alone on which no action was taken because the cars could not be traced. That figure could include some overseas drivers only registered abroad, but also those using the mailing-address ploy.
1000 offences in one area, in one month, by people who don't have to worry about cameras.

bjcc

23rd Apr 2006, 17:35

419

Again, I'll say that this is nothing new. It's been going on for years.

The artical you linked too concerns drivers that have obeyed the law, albeit, not to the latter. They have registered their vehicle. Again, it's not a new idea. People have been doing the same ever since I can remmember.

It is just another way of avoiding paying speeding fines, and no different to anyone who comes on here and brags of doing it.

Of course there is a solution, and that is that a report is added to the PNC. If the vehicle comes to police notice, which it will if the driver is breaking RTA legislation, then the driver will be dealt with then.

You mention 'Traffic Police' in your area, I assume you mean Police in genral, who you assume to be traffic. I wasn't traffic, nor were the officers I worked with, and we stopped veuicles on a regular basis. Not just for traffic offences, although that was often the initial reason for stopping.

Maybe I notice these things more, but I see Police stopping vehicles just as much as I used to 10, 15 and 20 years ago.

SixDelta

23rd Apr 2006, 19:37

I love the traffice police........ i love the way that 3 of Durham's finest found it necessary to pull me in off the motorway in an aggressive manner, stopping my vehicle with a patrol car then blocking me in with an unmarked Octavia because, as it turned out, my vehicle was "stolen".....erm, no it wasn't. Nor was it reported as having been stolen.

ANPR is used by SPECS "average speed" cameras, the London congestion charging system uses it and it's system that is shortly to be installed along Britain's motorways for "traffic monitoring purposes"

Is it just me............. :mad:

Unwell_Raptor

23rd Apr 2006, 22:11

So if your car had indeed been stolen, and was being driven by the thief, would you have minded it being pulled over then?

It seems that sometimes the police are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

B Fraser

23rd Apr 2006, 22:21

i love the way that 3 of Durham's finest found it necessary to pull me off

A most unfortunate quote !

Sorry, the joke was too good to resist, please put your beer on my tab at the first opportunity.

Cheers

:}

Onan the Clumsy

24th Apr 2006, 02:27

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Speed cameras are pretty much a necessity in these days of an ever expanding road system. They enforce limits scientifically designed through sound engineering principles. If they were not in place, our roads would become rivers of blood.

FlyVMO

24th Apr 2006, 03:24

Two points that I have seen little if any mention of-
Is there no allowance for a slightly out of tolerance speedometer? Or are cars put on a dyno and speedo checked during the Mot? (Live in the US so not familiar with MOT procedure) Something as simple as tires that are slightly off spec from OEM in diameter will throw it out.
Secondly- do they use the photos to determine who was driving before issuing points?
Here in New York we have Red light cameras (speed cameras would be pointless at least for 18 hours out of 24), but no points are issued to drivers licenses as it can not be proven who was at the wheel. (Steep fines to registered owner/operator though).
They seem to have little effect anyway, people regularly run signals and indeed I find driving here to be a combination of Chicken/ Russian Roulette. Perhaps there is something to be said for helicopters after all........

edited for sp.

G-CPTN

24th Apr 2006, 03:38

Don't know the recent requirements WRT speedos, but it USED to be "within 10% @ 30 mph". Don't believe there was any other requirement (ie accuracy at other speeds, although manufacturers preferred to have the speedo OVER-reading at high speed, rather than under-read (to 'please' the customers).
Recent info:-
The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, as amended, allows the use of speedometers that meet the requirements of EC Community Directive 75/443(97/39) or ECE Regulation 39. Both the EC Directive and the ECE Regulation lay down accuracy requirements to be applied at the time of vehicle approval for speedometers. These requirements are that the indicated speed must not be more than 10 per cent of the true speed plus 4 km/h. In production, however, a slightly different tolerance of 5 per cent plus 10 km/h is applied. The requirements are also that the indicated speed must never be less than the true speed.
A vehicle meeting these requirements would not be able to travel at a greater speed than that shown on the speedometer and a driver could not, therefore, inadvertently exceed speed restrictions. Her Majesty's Government have no plans to introduce instrument tests.

Gent: Thank you. And how much does that work out to per pound, my good fellow?

Butcher: Per pound, you slimy trollop, what kind of a ponce are you?

Gent: I'm sorry?

Butcher: 4/6 a pound, sir, nice and ready for roasting.

Gent: I see, and I'd care to purchase some stuffing in addition, please.

Butcher: Use your own, you great poofy poonagger!

Gent: What?

Butcher: Ah, certainly sir, some stuffing.

Gent: Oh, thank you.

Butcher: 'Oh, thank you' says the great queen like a la-di-dah poofta.

Gent: I beg your pardon?

Butcher: That's all right, sir, call again.

Gent: Excuse me.

Butcher: What is it now, you great pillock?

Gent: Well, I can't help noticing that you insult me and then you're polite to me alternately.

Butcher: I'm terribly sorry to hear that, sir.

Gent: That's all right. It doesn't really matter.

Butcher: Tough titty if it did, you nasty spotted prancer.

419

24th Apr 2006, 10:41

Bjc,
By "traffic police" I was refering to the police who drive around, as opposed to those either on foot, or on bikes, as the ones in vehicles have far more chance of stopping offenders.
I realise that traffic police might not be the correct terminology, but for the average man on the street, it probably sums it up.

Coconutty

24th Apr 2006, 14:23

Two things :

1) If all this speed camera mullarky is just about raising revenue then that's "fine" by me - I never break the speed limit :rolleyes: , so I am happy for the revenue to be raised from those that do - If it weren't for them, the Government would have to find the cash from elsewhere - and maybe incease the tax on petrol / diesel or even the Excise Licence and then I'd have to pay it :\

2) Have you noticed how black electricians insulating tape is pretty well the same width as the characters on a car number plate?
The kids down my way are always playing pranks, bless 'em, and if one them should ever change the "F" of my registration number to an "E" by careful application of a bit of tape, then I might not notice this and would never get a speeding notice through the letter box..... :E

..... and if said kids were wearing gloves when they played their prank there would be no finger prints on the tape to prove who dunnit ..... :suspect:

..... and even I got stopped for a "routine check" and they didn't believe me - the fine for not displaying a number plate correctly is a maximum of £1000 but with NO penalty points :hmm:

3) Ok 3 things - Stock up while you can - black electricians tape will be in short supply now the Eurocrats have decreed that good old red and black ( Twin & Earth cable ) mains wiring is changing to brown and blue - and blue tape on your number plate will be a bit of a giveaway :ok:

the Association of Chief Police Officers has produced guidelines for speed enforcement which start at 35 mph and Thames Valley Police is marginally above that.

So why the :mad: did I get a ticket for doing 43 in a 40? :ouch: The ACPO guidelines are 46 in a 40....

Grainger

24th Apr 2006, 16:38

So I've just found out that my niece had her car "borrowed" (i.e. nicked) by a so-calld "acquaintance" of hers. It was returned with the front and side smashed in, clearly having been involved in a serious collision.

They know who did it. He has no licence, no insurance, was driving without the owner's consent.

Were the police interested ? Well what do you think ? "No-one got hurt so it isn't a priority" is what we've been told.

This is what boils everyone's piss - Wile gets the works for 43 mph having never done anyone any harm, and here's a total scrote gets let off scot-free. At the risk of stating the obvious, Wile at least managed to complete his journey without hitting anything !

So don't tell me it's about safety - you get the book thrown at you for driving safely while someone who actually causes an accident doesn't even get investigated ! :mad:

G-CPTN

24th Apr 2006, 16:51

Singer George Michael has played down his collision with three parked cars near his north London home as a "parking accident".
The self-styled "terrible driver" said claims that he left without notifying the owners were "rubbish".

"I got into my parked car, which was on a very steep hill I have to add, took the handbrake off, tried to manoeuvre out and hit the car in front of me," he told the chat show, to be screened on Saturday.
"I didn't know that it hit the car in front of it, and hit the car in front of that."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4929480.stm

Rushton

24th Apr 2006, 16:54

With his standard of driving its time he formed Wham!

Grainger

24th Apr 2006, 16:59

So if your car had indeed been stolen, and was being driven by the thief, would you have minded it being pulled over then?

It seems that sometimes the police are damned if they do, damned if they don't.No U_R, they're damned because when your car really does get stolen (and smashed up!), they tell you they couldn't give a flying f*ck ! :mad:

Will someone please tell me what the increased probability of having an accident is by going at 43 in a 40 , compared to that of an uninsured, unlicenced driver in a stolen car ? Funny choice of priorities then which one to enforce :mad:

Zaptain

24th Apr 2006, 17:28

[QUOTE=EESDL]They say that they have a pretty picture, so can I ask for a copy or will that work against me?

DON'T for goodness sake ask for the picture unless you are absolutely certain you were not speeding and want the TWO photo's to do the measurements and maths to prove it.
If you ask for the pictures, the law assumes you are challenging to charge or pleading innocent, in which case it goes to court and if you are proven guilty you get all those lovely extra costs!

Onan the Clumsy

24th Apr 2006, 17:39

Congratulations Mike :ok: you win the prize this time.

...just my normal contribution to any speed camera thread btw :E I like to see who's paying attention

EGLD

24th Apr 2006, 18:00

No U_R, they're damned because when your car really does get stolen (and smashed up!), they tell you they couldn't give a flying f*ck ! :mad:

Will someone please tell me what the increased probability of having an accident is by going at 43 in a 40 , compared to that of an uninsured, unlicenced driver in a stolen car ? Funny choice of priorities then which one to enforce :mad:

And don't forget, is it safer doing 43 watching the road and concentrating on whats happening around you, or going 40 watching the speedo and feathering the throttle

G-CPTN

24th Apr 2006, 18:15

And don't forget, is it safer doing 43 watching the road and concentrating on whats happening around you, or going 40 watching the speedo and feathering the throttle
My sentiments. If I'm SPEEDING I'm paying attention to every nook and cranny (including my mirror, side turnings, slip roads, overbridges), whereas if I'm obeying the speed limit I'm watching the needle on the fascia . . .

Grainger

24th Apr 2006, 18:48

Still waiting for an explanation of why someone who steals a car and crashes it is deemed not worthy of investigation when someone who has spent their entire life driving safely is prosecuted, threatened, fined, criminalised for an incident that caused no harm to anyone

bjcc

24th Apr 2006, 21:18

Grainger

You'll be waiting for ever if you ask the question on here. Why not take it up with the police force concerned?

As for the other part of your question, suprisingly, most stolen/taken cars are not involved in accidents. Most are taken, driven and abandoned.

Grainger

24th Apr 2006, 21:34

Why not take it up with the police force concerned?Read Wiley's earlier posts... As for the situation with my niece, I've told you what the response of the police force was .. :rolleyes: